Home » Public Transport (Page 45)
Category Archives: Public Transport
On airport taxis at NAIA-Manila
Arriving at the Ninoy Aquino International Airport Terminal 3 from a domestic trip, we noticed the long lines of people needing to get a taxi to get to their homes or other destinations. NAIA has accredited a taxi company or companies as official airport taxis and travelers have a choice between metered and fixed rate taxis. Regular taxis were generally prohibited from picking up passengers at the airport terminals though they bring in passengers and could take passengers from the departure areas of the terminals; a common practice in other airports. I say ‘were’ because recently, in what seemed to be an effort to address the taxi supply issue, NAIA has allowed regular taxis to pick up passengers during ‘peak hours’. I say they should just assign a place for people to get regular taxis just like in Mactan Cebu and Davao.
Long lines for the metered airport taxi cabs
Long lines for the fixed rate taxis
Another looks at the long lines – not exactly the greeting you’d like when arriving in a city
–
Resistance is futile? The case against electric jeepneys
There is a strong sentiment against electric jeepneys along the route where the COMET is currently operating. This opposition has always been there even before the COMET came about. I would like to think that this is partly due to the perception among many operators and drivers that conventional jeepneys would be phased out and replaced by e-jeepneys. But then isn’t this replacement supposed to be an upgrade in terms of having a more energy efficient and therefore economical vehicle that had a significant bonus of being low emission as well.
I finally got a photo of the sign Katipunan jeepney operators and drivers put up at the terminal below the Aurora Blvd. flyover.
Protest against electric jeepneys written on Manila paper and posted on overpass column at the Katipunan jeepney terminal
Given the recent innovations and the rapid advances in electric and other fuel vehicles, it should come as no surprise that more reliable and more efficient models of these vehicles will be available in the market. In the case of the Philippines where the thrust for e-vehicles is focused on public transport, there will eventually be a model that will comprehensively beat conventional jeepneys in every aspect. That is, if there is not yet a model that good. Arguably, the COMET and the latest e-jeepney model (BEEP) are already better than conventional jeepneys. However, their acceptability is pending with operators and drivers who seem uninterested with the case against conventional jeepneys. Perhaps these people are being fed false information by another party? Hopefully, they will open their eyes and mind to the reality that will eventually catch up with them if they do not embrace change.
–
Another example of mismatched plates
My most recent post was on the inappropriateness of the new license plates issued by the LTO to public utility vehicles. New taxis, UV express and jeepneys suddenly had the back and white license that’s supposed to be issued only to private vehicles. This meant that it would be difficult to distinguish the legitimate PUVs from colorum or illegally operating ones. In the last post, I was able to show an example each for these license plates on a taxi and a UV Express van. Yesterday, I was able to get a photo of a jeepney bearing this “anomalous” plate as I was caught in an unexpected traffic jam along an otherwise free-flowing road in Rizal.
Jeepney bearing the black and white license plate issued to private vehicles
–
Metro Manila Urban Transport Development Plan (1990-2000) Project (UTDP)
I stumbled upon an unfinished draft I have on a study or series of studies conducted back in the 1990’s. These studies were conducted by several agencies over a decade. I think I have been procrastinating on finishing this brief post on a project that has had a major impact on Metro Manila transport and traffic since that time and prior to the completion of the JICA-funded Metro Manila Urban Transportation Integration Study (MMUTIS) in 1999. The project actually overlapped with MMUTIS’ implementation from 1996-1999 and probably influenced MMUTIS in terms of what government agencies provided as inputs to the study.
The Metro Manila Urban Transport Development Plan (UTDP) is an inter-agency collaboration among the DOTC, DPWH, MMA (precursor of the MMDA), NEDA, CHPG (Constabulary Highway Patrol Group of the Philippine National Police) and MTPC. This consists of various studies undertaken from the year 1990 to 2000 aimed to determine what projects can be implemented to improve urban transport in Metro Manila towards the turn of the century. Sounds familiar?
Among the most relevant studies conducted was the comparison of proposals for a mass transit system along EDSA. The two proposals compared were the Philtrak bus system and Street-level LRT. The Philtrak option is quite intriguing because its description is very much like the current bus rapid transit (BRT) systems in many cities around the world. However, there is no reference to bus systems already operating abroad at the time (e.g., Curitiba in Brazil already had an extensive BRT network at the time).
The study concluded that the Philtrak was preferable to the LRT along EDSA. Of course, we now know what got built along EDSA – a light rail system (EDSA MRT) that is now carrying more than twice the number of passengers it was estimated to carry. This is despite the conclusion from collaborating government agencies including the DOTC favoring the bus system with an exclusive ROW. It is also now obvious that neither the LRT nor Philtrak is most suitable as a mass transit system along EDSA. What is most appropriate is a heavy rail system that would be able to carry more passengers along the corridor.
[Reference: UTDP reports, 1999-2000, NCTS Library, UP Diliman]
–
All roads lead to Antipolo: rerouting for the Alay Lakad
The Rizal Provincial Government and the Antipolo City Government recently posted traffic rerouting schemes on their Facebook pages. Lalawigan ng Rizal was the first to post schemes that affect traffic in at least 3 major local government jurisdictions – Antipolo, Cainta and Taytay. The schemes affect the two major corridors that basically lead to Antipolo’s National Shrine of Our Lady of Peace and Good Voyage (or Antipolo Cathedral to many) – the Ortigas Avenue corridor and the Marcos Highway-Sumulong Highway corridor. There are many major and minor routes connecting to these corridors and are clearly seen in the maps.
Within Antipolo, there are also re-routing schemes, which the Antipolo City Government posted along with a “clearer” re-posting of the maps from the Rizal FB page. The Antipolo FB page includes information/maps on the rerouting within the city center. These schemes will affect traffic circulation including public transport routes. Critical would be the permanent and temporary terminals and parking areas set-up around the city that should be able to accommodate the thousands of vehicles that are also expected to be used by people who won’t be walking or cycling.
What the maps basically say is that from 4:00 PM today, Maundy Thursday, to 6:00 AM tomorrow, Good Friday, the stretch from Cainta Junction to the Shrine will be closed to traffic. This is to allow the hundreds of thousands expected to make the trek to Antipolo to have the road for themselves. What the maps don’t say is that motorcycles and tricycles would likely be allowed, too. I can understand that motorcycles could easily squeeze into the throngs of people but then allowing tricycles to operate among the walkers and bikers would be risky given their drivers’ behavior. Add to this that they would be making a killing out of charging opportunistic fares.
Technically, the rerouting schemes don’t appear to be as well thought of as can be expected from the LGUs. Baka ito lang nakayanan ng staff o ng consultants nila, and surrender na agad ang Rizal and Antipolo with regards to the coming up with more options for people to travel to the Antipolo Shrine? Not all people can walk or cycle but are willing to an could take public transport for their pilgrimage. The maps themselves are a bit crude and the Province of Rizal and City of Antipolo could have done much better maps given the resources of these LGUs. There are open source tools now available as well as your basic software like PowerPoint or Photoshop (even Word!) that can be used to render good quality images to guide people making the Alay Lakad. This is a regular event and though it happens once a year then perhaps the LGUs could have better plans especially to transport people who cannot make the walk to Antipolo. The objective after all is to convey the masses to and from the shrine safely and efficiently – something a mass transport system can do whether via Marcos/Sumulong or Ortigas corridors.
One reminder to all doing the Alay Lakad: keep your garbage to yourselves if you cannot find a proper waste bin. Do not dispose of your waste along the route and make a dumpsite out of Ortigas Avenue, Marcos Highway, Sumulong Highway or whatever roads you are taking! Kasalanan din po ang irresponsableng pagtatapon ng basura. While you might be forgiven for these “sins” through the Sacrament of Reconciliation (which many will likely take at the Cathedral), nature will have a way of getting back at you for your environmental travesty. –
Legit or kabit? Follow-up
I wrote about the “kabit” system last February. I mentioned that the EMBC bus I saw was actually operated by another company (RRCG) that seems to have also engaged another company (Jasper Jean) to provide bus units operating the EMBC routes. Unfortunately, I was not able to get a photo showing information on the original operator of this bus company and its lines to Rizal and Laguna via the eastern route through Antipolo. I was finally able to get a photo of an EMBC bus bearing information on the original operator/company for comparison with the information on the bus in the previous post. It clearly states here that EMBC is the operator of this bus.
Information printed on the bus as required by law
–
Future jeepney: COMET
Another vehicle being considered for the study on the comparison of customised vehicles being used for public transport is the COMET (City Optimised Managed Electric Transport). This is a 20-seater vehicle that we have written about in previous posts and was touted by its makers and supporters as the best and most suitable replacement for the conventional jeepney. Unlike the BEEP that was featured in the previous post, it is currently operating along a route with trip ends at North Avenue and Aurora Boulevard via Mindanao Avenue, Congressional Avenue, Luzon Avenue and Katipunan Avenue. This route overlaps in operation with established jeepney routes in those areas and thus competes directly with these jeepneys.
Notice that both the COMET and the BEEP have seating capacities of 20 passengers (except the driver). However, the COMET is the larger vehicle as it is both wider, longer and higher than the BEEP. In fact, a passenger can stand inside the COMET without having to bow his/her head so as not to bump against the ceiling. Perhaps the more significant difference with current operations is that COMET drivers have been trained to drive more responsibly (i.e., less aggressively) than the typical jeepney driver. So far they do not weave in traffic and stop only at designated points along their route. Future jeepneys should have drivers like these but they should also be compensated according to the requirements of their jobs as drivers. Such compensation schemes are among the biggest factors for the way jeepney drivers behave in traffic. Technology-wise, current and subsequent developments in motors, batteries and other components of the vehicle itself should make electric and other environment-friendly vehicles more attractive as replacements (successors?) to jeepneys.
–
Future jeepney: BEEP
The National Center for Transportation Studies (NCTS) of the University of the Philippines Diliman (UPD) is part of the Phase II of a research comparing the performances of customized local road vehicles (CLRV) for use in public transport. This project is being conducted together with the Vehicle Research and Testing Laboratory (VRTL) of UPD’s Department of Mechanical Engineering (DME), Electrical and Electronics Engineering Institute (EEEI) and the National Engineering Center (NEC) with funding from the Department of Energy (DOE). Phase II considers a longer route for the comparison of vehicles. In the previous Phase I, the route was UP Diliman-North EDSA while in this phase, the route will be Lagro-Cubao, which is significantly longer in distance compared to the previous study route.
Here are the specs for the BEEP, which features some significant design changes from the earlier versions of the e-jeepney:
It is worth noting the following for the BEEP:
1. The door is already located on the side of the vehicle instead of at the back.
2. The motor is rated at 30kW, a significant upgrade from the 15- and 20kW motors in previous e-jeepneys.
3. The seating capacity is for 20 passengers (excluding the driver) by about 2 to 4 people from previous e-jeepney models.
These are the most obvious changes in the BEEP and would be factors that could affect its performance and acceptability. Most jeepneys these days are “siyaman” meaning they seat 9 passengers on each of the bench seats plus 2 on the front seat for a total of 20 passengers. Also, jeepneys should be able to negotiate steeper slopes that have been among the problems for e-jeepneys. Not mentioned are the specs of the batteries and the charging time although the range claimed for a full charge is 85 km. This study will hopefully validate these claims and show us if the BEEP will be up to the challenge of replacing the conventional jeepneys on long routes.
–
Some updates on DOST’s AGT
Passing by the DOST compound last week, I saw that the newer of the two AGT prototypes the Department of Science and Technology (DOST) has funded through the Metals Industry Research and Development Centre (MIRDC) is already atop the test track along Gen. Santos Ave. in Bicutan, Taguig City.
The Bicutan AGT is larger than the prototype in UP. The former is a 120-passenger capacity train while the latter is a 6-passenger vehicle.
There are four on-going pre-feasibility studies on proposed AGT lines – UP Diliman in Quezon City, Litex in Quezon City, Gen. Santos Ave., Bicutan in Taguig City, and Baguio City. I am familiar with the first three, which is being implemented by UP but know little about the 4th, which is being implemented by a private consulting firm. The transport aspects (i.e., ridership estimates) of the Litex and Bicutan AGTs are almost complete and the estimated riderships are not encouraging considering the competition from road-based public transport comprised of jeepneys and tricycles along the proposed alignments.
There is a similar dilemma for the loop option proposed for UP Diliman that will be competing with the jeepneys operating in the campus. That is why another option is currently being studied, i.e., a line connecting Philcoa – the UP Town Center and Aurora Boulevard via UP, C.P. Garcia Ave. and Katipunan Ave. This line presumably would have significant ridership as it passes through major traffic generators in 3 major schools (UP, Ateneo and Miriam) and a commercial area (UP Town Center). It will likely become the mode of choice for people usually passing through the UP campus from Aurora Blvd. to get to Philcoa and beyond, and vice versa. And with the traffic congestion along Katipunan, a transit system with its own right-of-way should have better travel times compared with road-based transport.
A big issue about the AGT vehicles is the certification required before these are allowed to carry passengers in a real system. The current vehicles are prototypes so these will be subject to more refinements towards the model that would actually go into service in the foreseeable future. There is no update on this and the MIRDC and DOST don’t seem to be seeking more rigid and independent tests to certify the safety and integrity of this Philippine-made system. Perhaps the DOTC can help them on this through the LRTA or the PNR?
–
“No” to additional jeepneys?
I finally got a photo of a banner that I’ve seen on many jeepneys plying the Katipunan route. This appeared on jeepneys a couple of weeks ago and the message on it is clear: “No to more jeeps, to more traffic in Katipunan.” I became curious about this as I noticed that list of transport groups that had their names printed at the bottom of the tarpaulin. Noticeable is the absence of one group, Pasang Masda, among the list that includes, among others, LTOP, ALTODAP and the party list group 1-Utak, which used to have a seat in the Philippines House of Representatives.
Tarpaulin sign hanging at a wire fence at the Katipunan jeepney terminal under the Aurora Blvd. flyover.
Pasang Masda is supporting the Comet jitneys currently plying the North EDSA-Aurora Boulevard route (via Mindanao Ave., Congressional Ave., Luzon Ave. and Katipunan Ave.). In fact, the head of the group is reported to have bought a few units, likely convinced of it as a good investment. Is it? Only time will tell considering its route is not necessarily the best for it, overlapping with several jeepney routes including the UP-Katipunan route. Is the Comet a game changer? So far, it isn’t and that’s mainly because of its single roue that’s not exactly favorable for a demonstration of the vehicle’s capability and claimed advantage over the conventional jeepneys. A colleague even says that it seems the route approved for it doomed its operation in the first place. But that’s an entirely different story from the opposition to it that’s stated in the tarps at the Katipunan jeepney terminal and some of the jeepneys plying the route.
So, is it a “no” to more jeepneys because their numbers are really already excessive OR is it a “no” because the additional jeepneys are from other groups or those not affiliated or in league with the undersigned? It seems that the latter case applies here and this should be taken as an example of what to expect along the way as initiatives to phaseout or replace conventional jeepneys get going. It is a bit complicated due to mainly to the social aspects of a phaseout or replacement but it gets more complex with the personalities involved including and especially the leaderships of various transport groups.
–
Caught (up) in traffic 